For the last year or two, we’ve been bombarded with predictions that 3D is the next big thing in entertainment and how it’s going to save the movie industry. We’ve seen audiences moderately interested in digital 3D releases like Beowulf, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds. We’ve had trendsetters like George Lucas get excited about the possibility of giving old classics an all-new 3D makeover. But up until now, has it really proven itself to be anything other than the same old gimmick it was 50 years ago? Not really.

Recently Roger Ebert decided to speak out against the chorus of 3D zealots, mounting some level-headed criticism against the technology in the latest post on his “journal”:

“There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money’s worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we’re seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion.”

It’s cool to hear from someone who has experienced the various incarnations of 3D over the years, and is quite simply just not buying it this time around. Personally I feel like 3D has its place, but I am not sure that it will save much of anything. The one movie that may have a real shot at validating the medium is James Cameron’s Avatar. Until then, it remains more an amusement park ride than a storytelling tool. Check out Ebert’s full article via the link below.